Judge Olivia Rosales, Case BC707741 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: BC707741, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC707741 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: SEC

WATSON v. MAKITA U.S.A.

CASE NO.: BC707741

HEARING: 09/29/22

TENTATIVE ORDER

Specially Appearing Defendant MAKITA CORPORATION’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice

This products liability action was filed by Plaintiff BENJAMIN C. WATSON on May 24, 2018. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured on March 19, 2017, while using an angle grinder manufactured by Defendants. The angle grinder fell onto Plaintiff’s foot, causing injury. Plaintiff contends that the angle grinder contains various manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects.

Specially appearing defendant MAKITA CORPORATION (“Makita Japan”) argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it because Makita Japan is a Japanese corporation headquartered in Anjo, Japan. Makita Japan further argues that Makita Japan has no physical presence in California, has never conducted business in California, and has not purposefully availed itself of conducting business in this state. The only link between Makita Japan and any party to this case is a national distributorship agreement with a separate entity, Makita U.S.A., Inc. (“Makita USA”) which purchase products from Makita Japan and then sells them nationally in the United States. Makita Japan does not control Makita USA.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Makita USA acts as Makita Japan’s agent to enable Makita Japan to do business in California; Makita Japan markets its products for the California market; and Makita Japan has engaged in litigation activities in California, thus consenting to jurisdiction.

When a nonresident defendant/cross-defendant challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiff/cross-complainant has the initial burden of establishing the fact of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (Kaiser v. Aetna v. I.C. Deal (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 896, 903.)

The contacts identified by Plaintiff are insufficient to establish that Makita Japan is susceptible to general jurisdiction in the State of California. “A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial… continuous and systematic.’ [Citations.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) Here, the evidence shows that Makita Japan is neither incorporated in California, nor has its principal place of business in California. As the Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127 made clear, general jurisdiction should only be asserted when the evidence indicates that the company is “essentially at home” in the state. The Court cannot find that Makita Japan is essentially “at home” in California. (See Makino Decl., e.g., ¶¶3-16.)

“If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, [it] still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of the forum benefits [citation], and the ‘controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ a defendant’s contacts with the forum.’ [Citations.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) “The test for whether a court may exercise ‘specific’ personal jurisdiction requires that the nonresident purposefully directed his acts to the forum state or otherwise purposefully established contacts with the forum state, that the cause of action be related to or arise or result from the acts or contacts in the forum, and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the forum would be reasonable.” (Muckle v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 218, 227-228.)

The “purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be hailed into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts [citations], or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. [Citations.]” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472-473.) Here, the Makita Grinder was designed by Makita Japan and manufactured by a Makita Japan subsidiary in China. (Makino Decl., ¶26.) The subject grinder was then sold to Makita USA, and Makita USA sold and distributed the subject grinder in California. The national distributorship agreement entered into by Makita Japan with Makita USA does not constitute purposeful availment. Where jurisdiction is based on a “stream of commerce” theory, the “purposeful availment” requirement is not satisfied by the mere fact that the defendant placed the product into the stream of commerce. (J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011) 564 U.S. 873, 882-883.) Here, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently establish that Makita Japan directed any advertising, or otherwise solicited sales intended to specifically target people that live in the State of California. Moreover, the Court finds that Makita Japan’s participation in unrelated litigation was not initiated by Makita Japan and does not constitute such substantial and systematic contact with the state of California. The Court cannot conclude that it has specific jurisdiction over Makita Japan.

Specially Appearing Defendant Makita Japan’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.